J.P. v. Department of Human Services, 150 A.3d 173

In April 2015 Lycoming County CYS investigated and issued an "indicated" child-abuse report naming J.P. as a perpetrator based on alleged physical abuse of a child.
A Juvenile Court Master held a dependency hearing on July 14, 2015 and found that J.P. caused physical abuse; the trial court affirmed on July 17, 2015. J.P. did not participate in that hearing and did not appeal the Master’s decision.
CYS later changed the report status from "indicated" to "founded" based on the trial court adjudication and moved to dismiss J.P.’s expunction appeal before DHS BHA.
At the BHA proceeding, J.P. testified she never received separate notice of the Juvenile Court hearing and believed she was not permitted to participate because she was a parametr (paramour) rather than a parent; she learned of the hearing only because her paramour received the court notice.
The ALJ and BHA dismissed J.P.’s expunction appeal, reasoning she had notice (via reading the paramour’s notice) and had not attempted to participate in the Juvenile Court hearing.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that actual notice to J.P. was lacking and remanded to BHA to provide J.P. a hearing (adjudication invalid without reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether J.P. was afforded reasonable notice of the Juvenile Court hearing such that the resulting judicial adjudication could support changing the report to "founded"	J.P.: She received no direct court notice, reasonably believed she could not participate, and thus was denied due process	CYS: Notice to the paramour (which J.P. read) and the court adjudication suffice; BHA may rely on trial court findings to found a report	Court: Reversed — reading another party’s notice did not equal reasonable notice to J.P.; she was entitled to direct notice and a hearing before a founded adjudication could be used against her
Whether BHA properly dismissed J.P.’s expunction appeal based on the Juvenile Court adjudication	J.P.: Dismissal improper because the adjudication was invalid as to her without notice/opportunity to be heard	BHA/CYS: Dismissal proper because judicial adjudication supports founded status and expunction appeal can be dismissed on that basis	Court: Reversed BHA dismissal and remanded for BHA to provide J.P. an expunction hearing

K.R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 950 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (a founded report is an adjudication and adjudications require reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard)
Grossman v. State Bd. of Psychology, 825 A.2d 748 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (due process in administrative proceedings requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties and opportunity to present objections)
Noetzel v. Glasgow, Inc., 487 A.2d 1372 (Pa. Super. 1985) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform and enable presentation of objections)
Straw v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 308 A.2d 619 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (due process requires notice so respondent may adequately prepare a defense)